tax refund - first L purchase?

[jwhite]

Heh all,

I'm going to use part of my tax refund to purchase a new lense. The question is which one? I'm leaning toward either the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L or the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L. Of those that have both of these, which do you use more? Out of the lenses I have, I use my Tamron the most. I'm satisfied with the Tamron except the slow focus speed and in ability to lock on in darkened rooms. I'm one of those 'no flash' guys when I can make do without one.

I guess if I go with the 24-70, I can sell my Tamron and use that money for a nice prime, or save for the future. I could go the 70-200 f/4L route, but I think I'd like the 2.8 taking pictures inside.

Thanks,
Jason

[cdifoto]

My response will depend on how you answer the following question:

How much do you like your Tamron?


I ask this because you already have that range covered, so the 24-70 would be redundant. HOWEVER if you aren't 100% pleased with it, you could sell it and move up to the brick. I guarantee you'll love it.


If you're positively satisfied with your Tamron, get the 70-200 and give yourself some fast reach. Sell the slow zoom then.

[jamison55]

I upgraded from the Tamron 28-75 to the Canon 28-70L after too may missed shots due to the poor low light focus. The 28-70 can focus in a cave!

Having said that, in good light the Tamron is nice and sharp, and the 70-200 is a huge improvement over your current zoom.

And you seem to be totaly lacking in the wide arena, a Canon 17-40L would fill in this gap nicely...

Best of luck with your choice! You really can't go wrong with any of the red rings...

[jwhite]

How much do you like your Tamron?


I ask this because you already have that range covered, so the 24-70 would be redundant. HOWEVER if you aren't 100% pleased with it, you could sell it and move up to the brick. I guarantee you'll love it.


Well definitely not 100%. Just like Jamison said, the lack of focussing in low light is a pain. I know I've missed shots because of it.

[jwhite]

I upgraded from the Tamron 28-75 to the Canon 28-70L after too may missed shots due to the poor low light focus. The 28-70 can focus in a cave!

Having said that, in good light the Tamron is nice and sharp, and the 70-200 is a huge improvement over your current zoom.

And you seem to be totaly lacking in the wide arena, a Canon 17-40L would fill in this gap nicely...

Best of luck with your choice! You really can't go wrong with any of the red rings...

Awhile back I initially thought about going for the 17-40L, but the more I thought about the more I realized that I don't think I would use the wide end that much. 28mm has usually been sufficent, and if I go with the 24-70L, that is a little more wide.

Like you, I've missed several shots due to low light. That and the slow focussing is my only complaint with the Tamron.

Jason

[jamison55]

You should be able to get about $300 for the Tamron. That will buy you a used 85 f1.8...a very nice prime indeed!

[cdifoto]

Awhile back I initially thought about going for the 17-40L, but the more I thought about the more I realized that I don't think I would use the wide end that much. 28mm has usually been sufficent, and if I go with the 24-70L, that is a little more wide.

Like you, I've missed several shots due to low light. That and the slow focussing is my only complaint with the Tamron.

Jason

Truth be told I find the 24 wide enough 90% of the time. I'd feel the 17-40 would be generally too short, yet not wide enough when I really needed to go wide. I think on a crop camera an UWA would be better, coupled with the 24-70 and then 70-200. On a full frame I could see using the 17-40 for the really wide stuff.

If you use your Tamron a good bit, I would replace it with the Canon so you don't miss so many shots. If you don't go long very much there's no sense plunking down a large amount of cash on something that won't get much use.

That said, if you did go for the long L, you'd find uses for it, guaran-damn-teed! :D

[timmciglobal]

The 24-70 is a fantastic lens, it's possibly going to replace my 17-40L. Used it a day ago and was very tempted to buy one, its "big" relativly but it is sharp, especially @ F4.

Tim

[Mr. Peabody]

Heh all,

I'm going to use part of my tax refund to purchase a new lense. The question is which one? I'm leaning toward either the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L or the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L. Of those that have both of these, which do you use more? Out of the lenses I have, I use my Tamron the most. I'm satisfied with the Tamron except the slow focus speed and in ability to lock on in darkened rooms. I'm one of those 'no flash' guys when I can make do without one.

I guess if I go with the 24-70, I can sell my Tamron and use that money for a nice prime, or save for the future. I could go the 70-200 f/4L route, but I think I'd like the 2.8 taking pictures inside.

Thanks,
Jason


I've had my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lense for about a week now. I've been taking indoor school classroom photos and some indoor gym basketball photos with it. I've been extremely impressed with my pics it so far.

I plan to shoot some outdoor daytime shots with it tomorrow. I might even take it to the local zoo.

btw, I just ordered the 24-70 f/2.8L USM lense today from B&H. I will let you know I feel about it very soon.

[timmciglobal]

Just bought a 24-105 F4L IS.

Fantastic so far, nice range + Is quite sharp.

Tim

[Pomaric]

Just got my first L too, bought a used 70-200 f/2.8L from my photo professor for $850! Fantastic lens :D

[cdifoto]

Just got my first L too, bought a used 70-200 f/2.8L from my photo professor for $850! Fantastic lens :D

Great price too. Congratulations and enjoy!

[Mr. Peabody]

Just got my first L too, bought a used 70-200 f/2.8L from my photo professor for $850! Fantastic lens :D


We don't say "used" anymore.

The correct term is "preowned." ;)

[Pomaric]

We don't say "used" anymore.

The correct term is "preowned." ;)
Oh, sorry, my preowned lens is fantastic condition, can't wait to go out and test it when its not snowing!

[jwhite]

Well, I got the 24-70 f/2.8L!! :D

It arrived Wednesday, but I haven't had a chance to play around with it a whole lot. Should have more opportunity this weekend.

First impressions: Wow, this thing is a beast compared to the Tamron. After using it for a few shots though, it didn't feel to bad. USM is awesome. Never seen a lense operate with it. Fast and silent!

How much bigger is the 70-200mm f/2.8L compared to this guy? Is it possible to hand hold it reliably?

Jason

[Mr. Peabody]

Well, I got the 24-70 f/2.8L!! :D

It arrived Wednesday, but I haven't had a chance to play around with it a whole lot. Should have more opportunity this weekend.

First impressions: Wow, this thing is a beast compared to the Tamron. After using it for a few shots though, it didn't feel to bad. USM is awesome. Never seen a lense operate with it. Fast and silent!

How much bigger is the 70-200mm f/2.8L compared to this guy? Is it possible to hand hold it reliably?

Jason



Jason, I just got my new 24-70 f2.8 L lens this week also. It is amazing. I shot some outdoor baseball practice pics yesterday afternoon with it. The color and sharpness of the lens is mindboggling.

As some of you know, I returned my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens on Monday b/c I didn't think it was a "sharp" copy. I got my replacement yesterday. I'm at a basketball tourney in Missouri this weekend, and I plan to test it out.

As far as handholding it. It's easy. I hand held the one I sent back at two basketball games without a problem. It is big and heavy, but you get used to it. It gets a lot of looks from people too. Everyone assumes that I'm a pro. Little do they know that I don't know anything really. :D

[Rhys]

Oh, sorry, my preowned lens is fantastic condition, can't wait to go out and test it when its not snowing!

And there's me thinking pre-owned meant stolen!

[aparmley]

And there's me thinking pre-owned meant stolen!

Usually when a person is referred to as the "previous owner" then I think that means stolen! LOL I have no clue really.